No description available.

A recent shift in the composition studies has resulted in the renewal of interest in rhetorical invention. There is no uniformity among researchers and professionals about the optimal conditions preceding the composing process, especially among college students. This study was intended to explore the effectiveness of structured (Larson's Heuristic) and non-structured (freewriting) strategies of rhetorical invention produced by community college students. The objectives of this study were to determine the following: 1) whether there is an overall improvement of students' written argumentation after instruction in the strategies of rhetorical invention; 2) whether college student writers are more likely to use structured than non-structured strategies of rhetorical invention after instruction in both strategies; 3) whether there is a relationship between the nature of invention strategy used by the students spontaneously on the pre-test and the type of rhetorical invention used by them in the post-test; and 4) whether there is a relationship between the type of rhetorical invention and the quality of final drafts of argumentative essays. The study was designed as a combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Matched-samples t-test, chi-square goodness-of-fit tests, and ANOVA procedures were employed to address specific research questions of this research. Focus groups, conducted during the final stage of the research, provided emic data about students' experience in and attitude toward the strategies of rhetorical invention. Findings indicate that though students' performance on the post-test was higher than on the pre-test, there was no statistically significant improvement in the quality of written argumentation after the completion of instruction in the strategies of rhetorical invention. Secondly, after completion of the instruction, students used structured (Larson's Heuristic) and non-structured (freewriting) strategies of rhetorical invention with comparable frequently. Thirdly, there was a moderate relationship between the type of rhetorical invention used by student writers in the pre-test and the type of rhetorical invention used by them in the post-test and that in the pre-test. Finally, there was a statistically significant relationship between the type of rhetorical invention and the quality of the final drafts of written argumentation in the pre-test. Further, the length of evidence of rhetorical invention was related strongly to the quality of the final drafts in the pre-test. No statistically significant relationship was detected between the type of rhetorical invention and the quality of written argumentation in the post-test. The results of this study enabled the researcher to articulate questions and provide suggestions for future investigation of written composing and rhetorical invention among college students. / Ph. D.

Rhetorical agency is an ideologically contentious facet within communication and rhetorical research. While its importance in scholarship can be traced back to early works by Kenneth Burke and Pierre Bourdieu, debate continues regarding the source of agency, how it is enacted in rhetorical application and communication, and who/what can claim responsibility for the communication practices one may utilize in enacting their respective levels of agency. Thus, the ways in which the rhetoric of popular, influential individuals/antecedents affects the rhetorical agency and invention practices of those without significant levels of influence must be examined. American Christianity, in particular the culture created through heavy use of televised and web-media (televangelism), provides an excellent context to examine this subject. The present thesis discusses relevant literature to the topics of rhetorical agency, invention, and antecedents, as well as American Christianity, televangelism, and the changes that have occurred in religious rhetoric within the culture. Additionally, results indicate a high propensity towards rhetorical agency influenced through the themes of identity, adaptation, and audience sensitivity, and encourage pastors to focus on the identity and context through which their agency is manifested.

No description available.

Rhetoricians have long been interested in public policy discourse. However, studies have yet to apply the micro-lens of writing process to this context. One consequence is that, while studies of policy discourse point to the complexity of this area, they do not investigate the writing behaviors this complexity inspires. Secondly, while studies of writing process in other areas of rhetoric allow us to theorize process, our theories are typically based on more structured writing environments—such as the classroom, academic discipline, and professional workplace. As a consequence, we know less about invention and other writing processes in more unpredictable, explicitly contested settings. To address these gaps, this dissertation presents a process-based case study of collaborative writing within the context of policy and legal discourse. The case study tracks the year-long work of a group of advocates who attempted to establish Domestic Partner Benefits (DPB) at a large public university. Due to legal restrictions, the writers could not assume a clear authority as they attempted to write a policy proposal together. In meetings in which they invented ideas, a prominent behavior emerged in their talk, what this dissertation refers to as role-play work. Role-play work is a theory of rhetorical invention in which writers propose roles for themselves and their audiences, develop arguments from within those roles, and try to identify how they might be recognized or misrecognized as a consequence of assuming roles. Tracing patterns in the writers’ talk, this dissertation describes role-play work at three critical junctures: in the early stages, when the group lacks legal resources, during a tumultuous hunger strike in which the institution delivers its interpretation of the law, and during the group’s later writing process, when the group has a working understanding of a legal argument they can propose. This dissertation analyzes how writers use role-play to engage authoritative discourse that manifests at each stage: first, to imaginatively co-construct what might be authoritative, next, to confront authority-as-articulated, and finally, to understand the nuance of a potentially authoritative argument. Findings presented in this dissertation may be relevant to scholarship in professional and technical communication, collaborative writing and invention, writing process research, policy discourse, discourse analysis, and queer studies. / text

No description available.